Linus Torvalds: 'Linux is bloated'

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Woger, Sep 22, 2009.

  1. Woger

    Woger Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Woger

    peterwn Guest

    The article needs to be read in context. A comparison with Windows is
    not really valid as there is a 'Siamese twin' relationship between the
    kernel and key Microsoft applications such as Internet Explorer and MS
    Office. In Linux and its applications there is a 'bright line' between
    the two - applications cannot interfere with the kernel or willy nilly
    assume 'root' privileges. .
    peterwn, Sep 22, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Woger

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Not true. The kernel in NT based Windows is very disconnected, even more so
    than Linux. Good comment here:
    Nik Coughlin, Sep 22, 2009
  4. Woger

    Enkidu Guest

    Enkidu, Sep 22, 2009
  5. Woger

    Carnations Guest

    So, why are there so very many _security_ exploits and flaws in MS Windows?
    Carnations, Sep 22, 2009
  6. Woger

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    The kernel has very good security, faults lie in the subsystems sitting on
    top of the kernel:

    "Despite statements to the contrary, NT is secure by design. It was the
    first mainstream operating system with a proper implementation of a very
    flexible security model based on access control lists.

    Recent NT based operating system from Redmond, especially XP, got bad
    reputation for its weak default security-settings; mainly, to simplify the
    transition from Win9x for both users and legacy applications."
    Nik Coughlin, Sep 23, 2009
  7. Woger

    Biggless Guest

    There is no comparison with windows kernel done in that article ya
    plonker .. find me one mention of the word windows ..... that 12 % drop
    would be for the server I would hate to see the same stats for the

    The article also shoots LDO's stupid claims of linux kernel being small
    and modular out the window...

    Biggles ..
    Biggless, Sep 23, 2009
  8. Woger

    Carnations Guest

    "Secure by design" - that is why the kernel *allows* so many utterly fundamental security exploits that
    simply should not be permitted - by design, legacy applications or otherwise.

    Actual kernel subsystems that are in kernel-space are no different from the kernel and should be
    treated as if they are a fundamental part of the kernel. otherwise they should be in userland with all the
    fundamental lockdowns and restrictions that apply to userland code.

    If the code is in kernel space, and has a security hole that can be exploited, then it is the kernel that
    has the security flaw - by design.
    Carnations, Sep 23, 2009
  9. Woger

    thingy Guest

    thingy, Sep 24, 2009
  10. Woger

    Biggless Guest

    Did the para shatter your delusions...

    Biggless, Oct 1, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.